48 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

Please give me an example of any modern, or ancient battle fleet where the majority of the ships present and active at the battle were small weaponless craft that were largely immune to damage and I will stop attacking flotillas so hard, but they have turned a game about titanic vessels clashing in the depths of space in to a game about out purchasing your way to a stall tactic fleet that wins because it has way fewer actual warships then the enemy fleet.

It's a good thing this is a sci-fi game huh. Where your defenseless and unarmed crafts can literally disappear in a moments notice or reappear at point blank range.

People really need to stop comparing Star Wars to WWII.

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

It's a good thing this is a sci-fi game huh. Where your defenseless and unarmed crafts can literally disappear in a moments notice or reappear at point blank range.

People really need to stop comparing Star Wars to WWII.

on d-day?

d-day was a land invasion using troop transports, not a major naval action. I am talking about an actual force on force, naval battle. It makes no sense that a swarm of small weaponless ships should be so powerful in a game about fleet on fleet combat. They are an unfortunate byproduct of a series of factors, most of which are aimed at "fixing," Demo, that have culminated in the Flotilla+Relay+mass fighters being the strongest options in the meta.

Everything in moderation... This concept would go a long way toward insuring Armada can be played at it's highest levels with a variety of fleet builds.

The moderation concept applies to us as players when designing interesting, non-spamy fleets that do not abuse the activation system but rather a fleet that offers a deep, tactical experience for BOTH PLAYERS, rather than one player pressing the "I bought more flotillas and I want to wait until you make all the hard decisions before I actually play the game." button.

That goes for developers who need to make decisions about releasing new stuff to counter old stuff instead of directly addressing a design issue. Flotillas on their own are not the whole issue, but making them available in an unlimited quantity is, (limit 1-2 flotillas per fleet would help keep fleet activation numbers down to a point were fleets comprised of *gasp* a collection of actual warships can compete more easily), or changing flotillas to Squadron 1, (making them less viable as a carrier platform), or treating them as squadrons so that a fleet crumbles when you take out all their capital ships (which makes a lot of sense in a fleet on fleet action...)

Flotillas are point-for-point, the most effective carriers in the game on either side, who needs actual ships when you can just use flotillas that are 1/3 the cost? Pretty soon people figure this out and we end up in the situation we are now where flotillas have replaced actual ships as the backbone of fleets. Actual warships are seen as a liability due to their inability to shrug off damage with impunity, and the inherent reduction of activations you suffer from taking a large ship.

The Quasar will have a hard time finding a place in high level play simply because 2 gozanties can do its job cheaper, adds an additional activation to the fleet, and are much more durable, while having roughly similar weaponry.

Flotillas crowd out the design space of the game because they are to efficient. That efficiency must come with a significant down side that they currently do not have (looking at FFG), or we as players should recognize this and STOP ABUSING THE EASY BUTTON THAT IS CRIPPLING THE GAME.

5 minutes ago, Space_Cowboy17 said:

d-day was a land invasion using troop transports, not a major naval action. I am talking about an actual force on force, naval battle. It makes no sense that a swarm of small weaponless ships should be so powerful in a game about fleet on fleet combat. They are an unfortunate byproduct of a series of factors, most of which are aimed at "fixing," Demo, that have culminated in the Flotilla+Relay+mass fighters being the strongest options in the meta.

Everything in moderation... This concept would go a long way toward insuring Armada can be played at it's highest levels with a variety of fleet builds.

The moderation concept applies to us as players when designing interesting, non-spamy fleets that do not abuse the activation system but rather a fleet that offers a deep, tactical experience for BOTH PLAYERS, rather than one player pressing the "I bought more flotillas and I want to wait until you make all the hard decisions before I actually play the game." button.

That goes for developers who need to make decisions about releasing new stuff to counter old stuff instead of directly addressing a design issue. Flotillas on their own are not the whole issue, but making them available in an unlimited quantity is, (limit 1-2 flotillas per fleet would help keep fleet activation numbers down to a point were fleets comprised of *gasp* a collection of actual warships can compete more easily), or changing flotillas to Squadron 1, (making them less viable as a carrier platform), or treating them as squadrons so that a fleet crumbles when you take out all their capital ships (which makes a lot of sense in a fleet on fleet action...)

Flotillas are point-for-point, the most effective carriers in the game on either side, who needs actual ships when you can just use flotillas that are 1/3 the cost? Pretty soon people figure this out and we end up in the situation we are now where flotillas have replaced actual ships as the backbone of fleets. Actual warships are seen as a liability due to their inability to shrug off damage with impunity, and the inherent reduction of activations you suffer from taking a large ship.

The Quasar will have a hard time finding a place in high level play simply because 2 gozanties can do its job cheaper, adds an additional activation to the fleet, and are much more durable, while having roughly similar weaponry.

Flotillas crowd out the design space of the game because they are to efficient. That efficiency must come with a significant down side that they currently do not have (looking at FFG), or we as players should recognize this and STOP ABUSING THE EASY BUTTON THAT IS CRIPPLING THE GAME.

Idk. I tend to deal with flotilla pretty easily. Take H9 and you're good to go.

If killing flotillas is such an issue, change your fleet so you have an answer for them. That could be H9, Raiders, CR90B, or taking additional flotillas to counter activation advantage.

FFG will take action to change flotillas if they see it as a problem. The only thing you can do now it adjust your fleets and play style in order to combat mass flotillas.

The Quasar will be superior to 2 flotillas in every way. You get a stronger, larger alpha strike. It has 3 amazing squadron titles. It has a weapons team slot and offensive retrofit. It has red or blue AA + Kallus. Activation advantage is only an advantage before fighting begins by luring your opponent into your arcs. After that, they are a liability and tend to be weak activations waiting until the end of the round to go. The Quasar will be an extremely powerful, cost efficient activation.

Also, if you're going to play STAR WARS Armada and think it will recreate all your WWII fantasies, you are playing the wrong game.

A few brief points...

1 - I think there is a continued misconception that somehow people are arguing Armada is unbalanced at the meta-level. It is not. Everyone has access to the same tools! We all have a shot at winning and I think, in terms of two equally skilled players, the game is fine.

2 - However, the problem under the surface is that a single dominant strategy has emerged and is crowding out other options (we have all seen this before - arty party in FoW, 4th ed invulnerable Falcon grav tanks in 40k) and each time the impact is the same: enthusiasm for a game falls, new players stop playing, and the game withers overall.

This has certainly been the case locally; I had a new player ask two of us (myself and one other) for the best advice we could give him on how to play well and when confronted with "stop running multiple medium or large ships, you need 3+ flots and either 5 activations and max squads or 6+ activations if you aren't going max squads to compete in a tournament here" (advice identical to @Captain Weather's comments above) his response was "ugh, I think I'll just stick with other games".

The negative play experience and dominance of delay / refuse to engage strategies is very balanced, but also very off-putting for a large portion of potential players, as is the fact that the Nash equilibrium of the current meta is 5+ activations and either delay or zombie-ball.

We now have two major world events confirming this trend, and my biggest disappointment is that it's strangling my local scene to death because everyone is selling their Armada stuff to go play other games since they find it boring. It's not that they can't win; it's that they won't play.

I also could care less about analogies to other things; it's more this: are people having enough fun that they actually play?

I definitely will agree to these two points about the game right now:

1. There is "flotilla fatigue" for sure for some players right now. I have tried my best, as the suggestion @Space_Cowboy17gave to stop using/spamming them. I'm personally tired of the fact that they are everywhere. Not in their general use, but in their total ubiquity. (I do think that was FFG's intent though).

2. Most Wanted is my personal addition to what needs to change. The reds need some love.

(I hate Rieekan, but I'm not sure about any tweaks. I just hate what he does to the feel of the game. 1v1 Rieekan would make me puke if that is how the game was )

24 minutes ago, Reinholt said:

A few brief points...

1 - I think there is a continued misconception that somehow people are arguing Armada is unbalanced at the meta-level. It is not. Everyone has access to the same tools! We all have a shot at winning and I think, in terms of two equally skilled players, the game is fine.

2 - However, the problem under the surface is that a single dominant strategy has emerged and is crowding out other options (we have all seen this before - arty party in FoW, 4th ed invulnerable Falcon grav tanks in 40k) and each time the impact is the same: enthusiasm for a game falls, new players stop playing, and the game withers overall.

This has certainly been the case locally; I had a new player ask two of us (myself and one other) for the best advice we could give him on how to play well and when confronted with "stop running multiple medium or large ships, you need 3+ flots and either 5 activations and max squads or 6+ activations if you aren't going max squads to compete in a tournament here" (advice identical to @Captain Weather's comments above) his response was "ugh, I think I'll just stick with other games".

The negative play experience and dominance of delay / refuse to engage strategies is very balanced, but also very off-putting for a large portion of potential players, as is the fact that the Nash equilibrium of the current meta is 5+ activations and either delay or zombie-ball.

We now have two major world events confirming this trend, and my biggest disappointment is that it's strangling my local scene to death because everyone is selling their Armada stuff to go play other games since they find it boring. It's not that they can't win; it's that they won't play.

I also could care less about analogies to other things; it's more this: are people having enough fun that they actually play?

Totally respect your opinion dude, and it's sad to see your community turning away from the game. My question for your community then becomes, if you aren't enjoying the current game state, then why are you all still playing those fleets? Is the winning and the competition that important to where you can't play these "meta" lists? I play non-meta lists all the time, because 1.) it lets me experiment and try new things and 2.) through that I become a better player, more able to respond to a variety of playstyles and fleets. All I'm trying to say is, regardless of the current meta, it's might not solely be the games fault that people don't want to play it, it's also those peoples' mindset about the game that has caused them to lose interest.

I have long ago given up any belief that I can change the minds of others, @JJs Juggernaut. What you say may very well be true (though I expect at least some people don't like getting their bell rung repeatedly after having given an honest try to many strategies when they have found the dominant one), but ultimately, it doesn't matter, does it?

Unless I can mind control people to change their definition of fun, if they are suffering from flotilla fatigue (to steal @CaribbeanNinja's phrase), there's nothing I can do about it. The solution for the new guy of consistently winning lists + not spamming flotillas and activations appears to be an empty set, so if that is what he wants because boards of all/mostly flotillas don't feel exciting or Star Wars to him, it is what it is and the situation we settle at is a dead or dying community.

I don't unilaterally have the power to change others or the game.

Edit: I also think part of the problem is that the dominant strategy is specifically flotillas. If the dominant strategy were MC80s and ISDs with tons of X-wings and TIEs, I think we would have the same locked meta problem but it would be way more appealing to new people. One of the most troubling comments I get on the game currently is "doesn't feel Star Wars", so I think this is not a one-faceted problem, if that makes sense.

Guess we have to let FFG fix the game. I think they have more than enough evidence to support a flotilla nerf. 2 World champs and now Euro winning with 3+ flots and a bunch of squads.

i can see the flotilla fatigue, but with DCaps coming out, boarding teams coming out, <whatever quad battery turrets do>, there should be options soon. I realize saying "it's gonna be fine" doesn't help things, but we're still in wave 5, let's see what happens with wave 6. I don't understand people who have already dismissed Sloan or the Quasar for some reason, when there really hasn't been significant table time to try either of them out. Maybe they start rocking Rieekan (F)Aces, and they start dying way faster. Maybe Konstantine becomes worth taking (side-eyes.....)

I have to think Quads are going to involve adjustments or improvements to AA fire. Most of the time (non-Raider version) it's hard to decide to flak things as your dice are either fickle/lack rerolls (yes, i WANT to Leading Shots my AA roll, ugh) or you're facing a squadron that has 5-6 health and your squadrons can't chew through everything. Or you have Yavaris in your MC80 Ackbar side arc and you need to decide who to shoot, which is aggravating when your opponent isn't dumb enough to pick the Advanced Gunnery that CLEARLY helps them, too! I mean, Yavaris gets a second shot out the front, just like it always "wanted!"

I'm not saying I want squadrons nerfed (because i dont. i play them and enjoy playing them) but i do want a semi-viable option for flak to contribute. I don't want it to just auto-kill the squadrons, but i would like a viable way to have flak and your own squadrons working together take out your opponent's squadrons. Right NOW, where we are, i don't think that's really a thing outside of Raiders.

I think every wave 6 fleet I have made since both articles dropped is 0-1 flotillas. Quasar is a much better carrier and Torp HH with TF:O is a much more efficient activation than a naked flotilla.

14 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I think every wave 6 fleet I have made since both articles dropped is 0-1 flotillas. Quasar is a much better carrier and Torp HH with TF:O is a much more efficient activation than a naked flotilla.

Yeah, i've got a similar thing going on too!

2 hours ago, Reinholt said:

snip

Rienholt, just wanted to say I appreciate the fact you are still engaging this topic in a level headed way after the flak that pretty much everyone talking about this has caught.

I think we all hope this has just been a phase that we are swiftly moving out of.

Not sure if this should be another thread, but IF they were to make some major changes to flotillas, when would they do so? Would they wait for the "standard" November FAQ update? Would they try and throw something between the Store Championship and Regional season? Or just throw it in whenever?

1 minute ago, Card Knight said:

Not sure if this should be another thread, but IF they were to make some major changes to flotillas, when would they do so? Would they wait for the "standard" November FAQ update? Would they try and throw something between the Store Championship and Regional season? Or just throw it in whenever?

After wave 6? Or maybe before/after NoVa. Definitely before Worlds though.

I have been experimenting with 3 activation fleets. Slowly getting somewhere, but it is tough getting beat repeatedly. However, every game there is something else to learn.

Now it might be futile. But I have to try. I am not the worlds best player but I am creative, and if I can find a way, then I will be proud. This would be worth more than winning a major tournament.

I ran 5 activation at euros cause I am nowhere near at the moment.

18 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

Rienholt, just wanted to say I appreciate the fact you are still engaging this topic in a level headed way after the flak that pretty much everyone talking about this has caught.

I think we all hope this has just been a phase that we are swiftly moving out of.

Thank you, though I confess my trick, having been on forums for years and also been an admin for one, is this (and everyone can feel free to shamelessly steal it): you're never talking to the people in a thread.

I don't mean that negatively, but I mean the peanut gallery is usually larger than people think, and who knows who the other person in a thread is. @CaribbeanNinja might actually be 12 years old with English as a third language and doesn't actually play Armada, to use a deliberately ridiculous example, but the punch line is that it's never personal and most of the people are internet ghosts.

With that said I have pretty sharp elbows at moments so my apologies in advance, but I try to keep it under control in print.

4 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

I am not the worlds best player but I am creative

Imo, no insinuations here etc

6 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

I have been experimenting with 3 activation fleets. Slowly getting somewhere, but it is tough getting beat repeatedly. However, every game there is something else to learn.

Now it might be futile. But I have to try. I am not the worlds best player but I am creative, and if I can find a way, then I will be proud. This would be worth more than winning a major tournament.

I ran 5 activation at euros cause I am nowhere near at the moment.

I'm trying 4 and it feels safe enough. Dipping down to 3 means I don't have enough ships to dump points into, but 5 means I don't have enough points for upgrades. Both are with 130+ points of squads.

I need wave 6 so I can find the happy medium.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

I'm trying 4 and it feels safe enough. Dipping down to 3 means I don't have enough ships to dump points into, but 5 means I don't have enough points for upgrades. Both are with 130+ points of squads.

I need wave 6 so I can find the happy medium.

Yeah but you need to go outside comfort to discover!

I had a two ISD list with 130 squads that with first player and jerrod was reasonable. First player was essential.

4 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Yeah but you need to go outside comfort to discover!

I had a two ISD list with 130 squads that with first player and jerrod was reasonable. First player was essential.

I tried dual ISDs as well. Didn't get very far with it. Dual Glads+Quasar might be good. That will fill every slot and allow max squads.

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

I tried dual ISDs as well. Didn't get very far with it. Dual Glads+Quasar might be good. That will fill every slot and allow max squads.

My one concern with that is that it would seem that adding just one Gozanti for BCC would be stronger. Unless you're going Sloan with it?

5 minutes ago, geek19 said:

My one concern with that is that it would seem that adding just one Gozanti for BCC would be stronger. Unless you're going Sloan with it?

With conventional wisdom that is true. However you really need to throw conventional wisdom out of the window when testing.

Anyway I have pm'd undying as I have dragged this thread waaaay of topic.

9 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

With conventional wisdom that is true. However you really need to throw conventional wisdom out of the window when testing.

Anyway I have pm'd undying as I have dragged this thread waaaay of topic.

If there's a way in on that message, i'm always interested in janky, crazy ideas.

Ironically, I just pulled my Armada box off the shelf today and went through it, getting excited again for the game. Being a complete newb at Armada (but having played minis games since 1987) and having not played since the Gladiator was released due to life issues, this thread confirmed what I needed to know.

Sell what I have, the game evolved into everything I hate about minis games... it has been become driven by the meta and how the next set of new releases will min/max one's odds of winning. All in favor of actually playing a game that looks and feels like Star Wars. Same tested mathhammered army lists and upgrades playing identical lists, all decided by dice rolls in the end. At least until the next set of releases changes the meta again...then wash, rinse, repeat...

I understand this thread is all about the competitive play aspect of the game. But lets be honest, who else is really playing "just for fun" or "historical" battles. The community has all but died in my local shop. Speaking to who used to play at the shop, they either stuck with Xwing (due to them favoring that meta over the Armada meta; or the game play of Xwing over Armada) or dumped the game entirely because of the meta eventually taking over what remains of the player base. The campaign box was really only purchased for upgrades and such for competitive use.

See I'm a story guy. I want to play because of the story. I want this to feel like fleets of star destroyers are colliding with a ragtag fleet of hopeful rebels. I want swarms of fighters. As stated before, I want this to "feel" like Star Wars. Flotillas of rebel transports taking on capital ships is not Star Wars. Unless you are escaping from the frozen wonderland that is Hoth... And what Rebel transport is going to fly out ahead of the Frigates and larger ships? Also, no swarms of basic fighters is not Star Wars.

How about a force org chart for the game? Perhaps different for each side. 1-3 Capital Ships, 0-3 Light ships, 0-3 Flotillas, X-Y # of mandatory fighter bases (perhaps defined by the larger ships chosen. I mean, what Star Destroyer goes into a major engagement with no fighters? What Rebel fleet takes on an imperial fleet with no support fighters?)

Or what about some more story driven scenarios.

I don't know. I was soooooo excited for Armada at its release. Then that excitement just again puttered completely when I realized its only being played min/maxed competitively.